Bush just announced 1 Billion in aid for Georgia?

Question

Where seriously is that money coming from?

Answer 1

we have a huge line of credit.  don't you worry

Answer 2

It comes from the pocket of yours and mine. This is the most irresponsible act that our government can do to his people. Uncle Sam set up the conflict with Russia at Georgia to create a new round of cold war while spending tax payer's money to reward its puppy govrenment Georgia. We have such huge national deficit, foreign debt, serious recession, home foreclosure, skyrocketing oil, food, ... prices, yet our Republican government is still giving away our money.  

Answer 3

First: the money comes from you and I, and we have about 35 trillion dollars worth, so don't worry.

Answer 4

The US really needs to take action against Russia. While it has spent Billions of dollars for years on Israel ( one of the highest income countries) it forgot regions that can be very dangerous. Short term I dont think US will benefit from anything there, however, on the long run it is immensely important. It is time to see the real problems instead of wasting money on things like Iraq while even iraqi government does not need the US there any more. After all Georgia was the third largest contributor in Iraq after US and Britain.For a small country that is almost one fourth of their army.

PS Actually that BIllion program was Obama and Bidens initiative after Biden visited Georgia week after the conflict.

Answer 5

If Russia gains control of the oil ( and natural gas ) that runs through that region, you will need more help than our government could ever give you, believe me. That is, unless you are independently wealthy...

Answer 6

Are you serious? 1 billion is petty cash when you have a budget o of over $2,730 billion dollars.

To simplify it, you have a budget for a project for $2,730.00. Some one comes up with an expense of $1.00 for coffee filters because you ran out.

Money spent in Georgia could be money very well spent.

Answer 7

Everyone and their mama (outside the U.S.) knows that Georgia was the aggressor whose action was obviously approved by their boss the U.S. before the war started.

The truth of the events ...

<<<August 8 - During the night and early morning, Georgia launched a military offensive to surround and capture the capital of separatist Republic of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, thus breaking the terms of the 1992 ceasefire and crossing into the security zone established therein. Over ten Russian peacekeepers were killed during the attack. The heavy shelling, which included Georgian rockets being fired into South Ossetia left parts of the capital city in ruins.  Up to 2,000 dead in Tskhinvali following the shelling.>>>

THEN, Russians counter attacked to protect South Ossetia.  

Funny how media propaganda can completely twist the truth of something that important.  And trained sheep don't even notice the major combat zone was at Tskhinvali and surrounding areas.  How did Georgia troops got there if they were the one being attacked????

(Funny thing is... I figured the truth out myself by reading these pathetic lies from the U.S. mainstream media propaganda without reading any other sources....because these lies actually conflicted with itself.   They mentioned how South Ossetia and Russian troops regained control of Tskhinvali after one day of fighting....along with the pictures of burning Georgia tanks on the streets of Tskhinvali!  FUNNY INDEED!  Georgia troops magically appeared in the capital city of South Ossetia after Russians "invaded" them!  )

The U.S. and NATO is surrounding both Russia and China with more and more military bases.  Which intention is so obvious...and repeatedly have its puppies test their patients by launching more aggressive actions.  And then have media propaganda barking like pathetic dogs with nothing but lies on daily basis.

Funny to see many people are willingly to spend money on another lie.  Thx to the mind controlling propaganda.

One step closer to WWIII...

Answer 8

Let's all just not even bother to work.

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

AIM COLUMN  |  BY CLIFF KINCAID  |  FEBRUARY 12, 2008

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member.

A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.   

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.   

The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.   

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day."  

The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day." 

The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).  

The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."  

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development."  

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.  

Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate. 

The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.  

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican

Answer 9

The federal budget. I don't hear you complaining about the 400 billion dollar increase in our taxes being proposed by Mr. McCain's opponent. If we don't support Georgia, it's going to cost us a lot more than 1 billion dollars. It will cost us another World War.